In making their rulings, British judges use a guidance manual named the ‘Equal Treatment Bench Book’, which is published by the Judicial College, a body responsible for training all UK judges. The manual was just updated with a very pro-feminist, anti-male worldview taking hold. Judges are now being advised to avoid offending any of the snowflakes that might appear in their courtroom:

“Judges are now being urged to refrain from using certain words, including ‘ethnic minorities,’ ‘afro-Caribbean’ and ‘transsexual,’ while ‘postman’ should be replaced by ‘postal operative’.”

But the politically correct language doesn’t stop there. It gets much worse:

“The guidelines also call for judges to be “slow” when it comes to jailing women, as imprisonment is believed to be more damaging to females than males. Going against the long-standing social norm whereby all are treated equally before the law, the guidelines suggest the opposite. “True equal treatment may not always mean treating everyone in the same way,” the new version reads.”

It’s hard to imagine a more ludicrous statement. Equal treatment absolutely means treating everyone equally. Anything else is unequal treatment, plain and simple. This cannot be denied, yet the wizards at the Judicial College somehow have convinced themselves of something that is completely at odds with both the function of the English language and observable reality. Welcome to the liberal feminist ideology, where black is white and unequal treatment is fair if it benefits those poor victims of the patriarchy.

The craziness continues:

The Bench Book adds: “Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their lives. The previous life experiences of women offenders, their reasons for offending, their offending patterns, the impact of custodial sentences on themselves and their dependants, and the long-term effect of prison sentences all tend to differ between men and women.”

Yes, men and women tend to differ. That’s about the only true statement above, and one which feminists have, ironically, railed against for decades. Men are absolutely negatively affected by prison sentences, especially since there are more men imprisoned than women, and men statistically have longer sentences given to them by judges. Men also have many disadvantages in life, too. Everyone has to struggle to survive, not just women. To consciously favor one gender over another in legal matters is the definition of inequality. Here’s a novel idea: if anyone, woman or man, doesn’t want to be imprisoned, don’t break the law! It’s ludicrous to say that if a woman breaks the law, it’s because they are victims, but if a man commits the same crime he’s an aggressor.

This feminist tour de force sadly continues:

If judges deem it necessary to hand a jail sentence to [female] defendants, they should consider suspending it, the guidance advises. It reads: “The impact of imprisonment on women, more than half of whom have themselves been victims of serious crime, is especially damaging and their outcomes are worse than men’s.”

Where is the proof that “women’s outcomes are worse than men’s”? The implication is that men are not as negatively impacted by imprisonment, at least not enough for these libtards to be concerned about it. Lots of men are victims of serious crime. More men are beaten and murdered statistically than women. So why are women being singled out for favoritism in the courts? Men get beaten and even killed every day, often in the course of trying to protect women.

One of the chief justices who helped create the new guidelines wrote in the foreword to the policy changes:

“The profound desire of the team responsible for this revision is that all those in and using a court leave it conscious of having appeared before a fair-minded tribunal.”

But there is nothing fair-minded about the changes they made. It’s all about unequal treatment based on gender alone. As if it needs to be said, this is the precise opposite of fair and equal treatment.

Courts are places which should be impartial and unaffected by anything but the facts of a particular case. The fact that postmodernist, radical feminist ideology has spread to the point that it is actually altering the way courts make judgments on criminal acts should be concerning for everyone. How long before courts convict a defendant solely based on their gender? That may sound extreme, but after reading the above, I can’t help but feel that things are only going to get worse, not better, as this mind virus spreads through more and more institutions in Western nations.


Original article

ER recommends other articles by SOTT